Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2016

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask this question again, because neither the question posed earlier by my colleague nor a follow-up question by our colleague across the way has cleared up any of the confusion.

Minister, I appreciate the work that you're doing and I appreciate the work that your colleagues are doing, but there's confusion out there, whether it's with industry, with indigenous peoples, or with communities.

Please give a simple answer. Does free, prior, and informed consent give veto?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Sorry, I missed the last word. Does free, prior—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Does it give veto?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I will go back to what Perry Bellegarde, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations said. Veto is not utilized in free, prior, and informed consent in the UN declaration, but it's about collaboration and working together. That is really key.

As we said, proponents clearly need certainty. They want to get the resources to market, and to do that, they need to ensure that they're consulting and engaging, and where necessary—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

We're not disputing that, Minister. We're not disputing that at all. We believe that collaboration must start on day one. But Perry Bellegarde said today that free, prior, and informed consent “very simply, is the right to say yes, and the right to say no.” Are you referring to those comments?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm referring to the fact that veto is not used in the definition of free, prior, and informed consent.

I think what is key is that—and I'm going to continue saying this because it's just true—the only way you will get your resources to market is if you show that you can do it in a sustainable way and that you have meaningfully consulted with indigenous communities. Companies know this. Proponents know this. Communities will have different perspectives. That's absolutely right, but you need to strive to build a consensus. Unfortunately, because that hasn't happened in the past, it's been extremely difficult for some major projects to build—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Minister, you're also on record saying that we're not always going to have consensus, correct?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

So at what point is a decision made to move...? Where do we balance out economic with consensus?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Now I'm going to get quite technical, and I will eventually pass it on to the head of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

As I said, my role is to ensure that we go through the proper environmental assessment process and look at all of the factors. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will assess what impacts there are, and as part of that, will look at impacts on indigenous communities, and ultimately, a decision will be made.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay.

Minister, I'm going to shift because we're not going to get a concise answer on that.

Have you been briefed on the potential economic benefits of the proposed Pacific NorthWest LNG project?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I am aware. The Pacific NorthWest project is, just for those of you who may not know, an LNG project that's under review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

We have received 34,000 comments, I think, as well as significant new information from the proponent. We're now working with the proponent.

In the draft assessment, there were a number of conditions. Concerns were expressed by the proponent about the conditions which we felt were necessary to mitigate the impact on things like salmon. We are in the process of working with the proponent to address those issues.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Thirty-four thousand responses; is that what you said?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Those were comments provided by the public.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In regard to the 34,000 responses, how many of those responses are from the region and the communities that are directly impacted?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I do not have that answer. I will ask the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'd appreciate that.

The other question is, when you are doing your consultations—

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think the minister needs to answer that question. She's deferring it to her colleague, and I think it's disrespectful for them not to be able to answer the question.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm simply trying to get the questions in with the limited time that we have. There's no disrespect at all.

This is actually a follow-up to the reason that I'm asking that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Please proceed.

It's noted, Gary. Thank you.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Minister, the reason I'm asking this is that in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, indeed, northern gateway goes through there, and there's Pacific NorthWest LNG. We've had Mount Polley. There is a considerable amount of third party interests, folks who are there, folks who are calling in against projects that have no specific interest in our region. That's why there's concern: the narrative is being driven by outside parties.

My question for you is, how can we as government or you as government in your process ensure that third party interests outside of those that are here, are not carrying the narrative and making the decision for us?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Our focus when it comes to environmental assessments is making decisions based on science, facts, and evidence. We look at comments that are received. We also look at the science. We look at the facts. The big focus is on what the significant impacts are and whether the impacts can be mitigated.

The goal is not to ensure projects don't go ahead, but it's to make sure that projects that go ahead proceed in a sustainable manner and also mitigate any impacts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

We're out of time.

The next question is from Gary Anandasangaree, please.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here today. Thank you very much for the hard work that you've undertaken since October 19.

I want to refer to your mandate letter with respect to a comment that's in every minister's mandate letter. That's with respect to the comment, “No relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous Peoples.”

I would like you to interpret that for me. I know you laid it out at the beginning, but I think it's important to see how you reflect this, and how you feel that you're engaged in fulfilling this particular mandate.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It is true that no relationship is more important, and that means that we need to meaningfully consult, and we need to meaningfully engage, and we need to make sure that indigenous peoples are sitting at the table, that it isn't just lip service, that you have the conversations, that you listen to perspectives. This is a different way of doing things.

As I said, I'm very humble about this. It is a learning process, but it is critically important. It's critically important to doing what we've also committed to doing, which is to have real reconciliation, and to move forward as a country.

Everything we do we consider, how should we be meaningfully engaging with indigenous peoples? What conversations should we be having? Who should we be calling?

It's interesting because it even came up on the first day on the job regarding Montreal sewage. I inherited the file on the issue of whether there should be a release of sewage into the St. Lawrence.

It was a really tough file because based on the science and evidence, and in talking with my scientists, they said that a controlled release was far better as it could be monitored, and you could mitigate the impacts, as opposed to an uncontrolled release.

We had concerns. I had major concerns. I said that we could just make that decision, but a lot of people would not understand it. We knew there were communities that would be very unhappy and impacted, so we reached out to them. It was interesting because what they said was, “This is unbelievable. We cannot believe that you are reaching out.”

It was suboptimal for everyone, but it was a decision based on science and evidence. I think that's the important thing, that we actually make the effort, that you consider whether there is an impact. Is there a way to go forward? How do you have real conversations and find out ways to move forward?

I think that applies to major projects. I agree with you that working with communities and trying to find solutions, creating economic opportunities, are hugely important, but finding ways to do this in a sustainable way that reflects this view that we need a nation-to-nation relationship, that we will only be able to move forward with these projects if we have meaningfully consulted, meaningfully engaged.... Because the last thing we want, to the member's point previously, is litigation. The last thing we want are blockades. No one wants that.

The way to avoid that is to look at the opportunities. How do we strive for consensus? That won't always be possible, but that's what we should be striving for, and that's what we do. That's what I know the public servants I work with are very committed to doing.